Because some things bear repeating, a few items from the archives:

The Importance Of Plumbing.

A tale of utopia and human faeces.

Saddle Monkeys.

Guardian columnist bemoans dislike of cyclists, suggests changing word.

Let’s Be Alone And Unhappy.

Progressive women unlock secrets of eternal happiness.

Powder Room Scenes.

The territorial struggles of weird, cross-dressing men.

For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Further to recent rumblings in the comments on the subject of frankness, this, by Devon Eriksen, caught my eye:

Ms Katie Campione, at whom the above is directed, is a “journalist living in Los Angeles,” a “TV and labour reporter.” She doesn’t like the idea – one might say the reality – that boys and girls tend to be interested in different things.

We are going to have a fundamental difference of opinion if you think the answer to boys not reading is to write about “boy stuff” and not rethink how we engage with boys in general let alone as readers. No specific interest or taste should be placed on a gender binary!!!

— Katie Campione (@katie_campione) November 7, 2026

She has pronouns in her bio.

As seen above, and so many times before, progressive contrivance tends to point away from reality. That’s pretty much its defining attribute. Often to a degree that’s bewildering, maddening, and something close to surreal.

Because contrived unrealism is where the in-group status is.

And hey, priorities.

Update, via the comments:

Needless to say, and despite contrary evidence being mustered, Ms Campione is not exactly rushing to engage with any of her critics.

While we wait, readers are welcome to ponder how one might “rethink how we engage with boys… as readers” while simultaneously – and quite vehemently – disdaining any notion of “boy stuff,” i.e., subject matter and writing styles to which boys are more likely to be attracted, and while denouncing the very idea that, in aggregate, boys and girls have differing interests and sensibilities.

Readers may also wish to ponder undertaking such a task on grounds that “a gender binary” is something one must be seen to reject, loudly and often, if not coherently or persuasively.

And despite such assumptions not exactly working out well in the real world.

Update 2:

Mags quips,

Ms Campione continues by insisting that the reading tastes of children are merely “indicative of their upbringing and socialisation,” because “gender is a social construct.” No other possibilities are, it seems, conceivable. In her mind, the fact that boys and girls tend to differ in their reading interests is merely “a thing that we made up.”

And by implication, something to be corrected.

Apparently, Ms Campione has “been reading books written by and about men my whole life,” and therefore boys should be taught “that they can and should identify with all sorts of stories.” I.e., stories generally preferred by girls and written by women.

I think we can assume she’s not referring to, say, Agatha Christie.

Update 3:

The determined affectation is very nearly surreal.

Ms Campione does “not agree… on a very foundational level” that boys will tend to be more interested in the kinds of books that they tend to be more interested in. Apparently, their inclinations can be manipulated and overridden, by women like her, one assumes, via some means not disclosed, and despite all evidence to the contrary.

“Maybe your son could stand to read some romantasy,” says she.

I suspect that any actual interest in getting boys engaged with books will take second place to a more exciting re-education project, via which they will be made less like boys. I mean, that is what seems to excite Ms Campione, and doubtless other women very much like her, many of whom will be employed as publishers, or teachers.

Ms Campione is currently boasting of “making men mad online.” While lying about what it is she said that prompted the avalanche of mockery and correction.

Our betters. These glorious beings.

Update 4:

Readers of an unforgiving bent may find amusement in the replies to Ms Campione, not least the ones sharing screengrabs of what she actually said, as opposed to what she says she said. I suppose interacting with people who don’t aspire to be thought of as progressive, according to this week’s rules, must be quite stressful.

Which brings us back to the initial point – the problem of being accustomed to pretending things, and being surrounded by people who also pretend those same things, and who will punish you for not pretending them – and then having to deal with people who do not pretend. And who can see, and mock, all of the pretending that’s been going on.

It’s the tragedy of our times. Send tissues, stat.

Not, it seems, alone. (h/t, Mr Muldoon) || Lady doings. || Get a dog, they said. || A guide to Norway’s fancier toilets. || So, can you tell what it is yet? || Chicken hypnosis, 1923. || You may begin shenanigans, she said. || Sugar butter. || Bold overtaking. || Testing vintage nutcrackers. || Party toast. || He wants to lecture you on “disgusting and wrongheaded ideas,” and he uses the word perverse. || The progressive retail experience, parts 768, 769, 770, 771, 772 and 773. || Snap, crackle, pop. || Paradiddling. || Big sleeping things. || The robots are coming. || The Restroom Archive, an interactive repository of toilets. Includes graffiti and discolouring. (h/t, Tacky Raccoons) || Modernity, baby. || These are some of these. || A tiny noise. || Artefacts of note. || And finally, how to spell seventeen.

To enable extra commenting options – including @username mentions, comment editing, upvotes, custom avatars, and live notifications – scroll down to the black ‘Meta’ box at the very bottom of the page and click register. It’s free and quite painless.

For additional rumblings, follow me on X.

Lifted from the comments,

That would be the advert currently trending for all the wrong reasons, and regarding which viewers’ feedback has now been disabled.

Hideous advert
Appeasement and entitlement
NOT what CHRISTMAS should be about; and definitely isn’t in my book.
Oh @JohnLewisRetail you’ve completely missed the point! https://t.co/O0OBNfaPiV

— Manda moo (@Warrioramira01) November 4, 2026

Says commenter Min,

Yes, they’ve often been rather sweet with an agreeable, universal sentiment. Missing friends, shyness, loneliness, not wanting to leave people out, etc. Hibernating bears. Machine-tooled emotional manipulation. Which is how a department-store Christmas ad should be.

This year, however, they’ve assumed we’ll be enchanted by rude, selfish, misbehaving children whose affection has to be bought with great effort and at great expense, in desperation. And the decision to make those children brown – because apparently you can’t have an advert without the statistically unlikely interracial couple – adds a dynamic that I somehow doubt was intended.

Commenter [+] quips,

What’s remarkable is that the project must have involved any number of highly-paid, supposedly clued-up experts, masters of nuance, and endless meetings, over months… and no bugger spotted how readily the ad lends itself to much less festive interpretations.

I watched it again this morning and am still processing just how weirdly misjudged it is.

For instance, that heartwarming moment when the scowling, diverse grandchildren shake their Christmas cards in annoyance, having found no money in them. Behaviour enabled, one assumes, by the ineffectual, unapologetic parents, who allow their offspring to wreck other people’s homes and to jump up and down on other people’s furniture.

And remember, we’re supposed to like these unparented brats, enough to care about pleasing them. And we’re supposed to identify with the grandma who wants these brats to love her, if only for a few minutes, before they presumably resume their scowling, ungrateful ways.

Feel that Christmas spirit, people.

It does rather suggest a gulf between, on the one hand, progressively-inclined John Lewis management and progressively-inclined London ad executives who think that sneaking trans flags into Christmas adverts watched by children is terribly clever – and on the other hand, actual John Lewis customers and the general public.

We’ve been here before, of course. When customers were expected to find charming the thought of their homes being trashed by a selfish, vamping, cross-dressing child.

And then there was the attempt to endear customers by announcing, very proudly, that they employ middle-aged transvestites with whipping fetishes because doing so results in “a better connection to our customers.” Thanks to these “identities we share.”

As I said at the time,

It’s hilariously insane. But in fairness, very now.

Being a “fur princess,” he “was born to sparkle like a queen.” Hence, of course, the tiaras, leis, turtlenecks, wigs, the copious mohair, the full-length fur.

This guy has a fetish for wearing dozens of layers of women’s clothing. He’s popped up in numerous Facebook groups, and demands to be called ‘princess’, and talks about how much he hates his wife and children because, for some reason, they don’t want to be seen in public with him https://t.co/EyKPxOwpgP

— ripx4nutmeg (@ripx4nutmeg) November 2, 2026

He sparkles more than would seem strictly necessary.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.